🚀 go-pugleaf

In reply to: Message-ID: <4193@nsc.nsc.com> by Roger:
 >The demo showed the visual affects of what 3x ment.  Yes you are correct, 
 >at that same meeting, both set-ups were running at the same clock frequency.  

The demo did not state this this was a simulation, but rather mislead people
into thinking that the 32332 was going to 3x of a 32032.  Why do you think
some people bitched and moaned when the 32332 was showing a performance
increase of less than half that amount?

 >Yes you are correct, at that same meeting, both set-ups were running at
 >the same clock frequency.  Since the demo was I/O bounded anyway, it would 
 >hardly have mattered if the 32332 were actually 10X faster.

True.  The 3x performance gain was obtained by slowing down the 32032.  The
was done was by having the 32032 perform extra work (such as non-optimal I/O).
Had been a big sign on the demo saying: "simulated performance", maybe things
would have been less misleading.

This kind of benchmark (showing raw CPU increase) is somewhat comic when you
remember that the selling pitch of "32000 vs 68000" was based on total system
performance, discounting MOTs raw-cpu performance.  But that seems to all
be "water under the melons" now, if you know what I mean.

What am I looking/hoping for?  Well:

   * What kind of system thur-put increase will I see in a 32532 vs 32x32?

	Saying 'going from junk C compilers to normal C compilers', jumping
	to 15Mhz and a 332 gives you 3x is not the most optimal way to
	gain performance.  For example, if you improve the C compiler on a 
	32332, then you do the same on a 32032.   (your code compat, remember?)
	The compiler improvement should be factored out.  Or, if I have XYZns
	rams in my system, increasing the clock rate may likely lead to more
	wait states than more performance.

   * How soon after the 'on-time project' delivers a working 32532 in samples 
     might I see 19800 Dhrystone systems?

   * How has NSC changed the way the 532 is being developed/built in order to
     prevent a repeat of the past problems?

	Like the 16032G to 32016N problems, lack of NSC 32032 demo system,
	confusing statements about the 32332 performance, ...

   * If I go ahead and design a system based on the NS32532, won't I be faced 
     with the problem of building with a chip line that is not as commonly used?

	That may be an unfair/misleading question.  But my point is that
	customers are going to be seeing x86 ot 680x0 systems up the WAZooo.
	They might wonder about someone going with a non-common brand...

Lets try to direct this discussion away from finger point and more toward
what will be, and how it has been improved.  Also, I hope the NSC folks have 
not been offended at my asking pointed questions.

Best wishes toward building 19800 Dhrystone systems!

chongo <uh-clem?> /\mp/\
-- 
[views above shouldn't be viewed as Amdahl views, or as views from Amdahl, or
 as Amdahl views views, or as views by Mr. Amdahl, or as views from his house]